Zulu v Eskom Rotek Industries (SOC) Ltd (JS154/18) [2018] ZALCJHB 459 (10 December 2018)

Zulu v Eskom Rotek Industries (SOC) Ltd (JS154/18) [2018] ZALCJHB 459 (10 December 2018)

The court found that while the applicant's amended statement of claim could, on a generous interpretation, be read to postulate a tacit term regarding the duration of employment and a claim for special damages, the pleading was vague and embarrassing. The applicant failed to clarify whether he relied on a tacit term or a reasonable expectation, and did not attach the written contract. The exception that the amendment did not disclose a cause of action was dismissed, but the alternative exception that the pleading was vague and embarrassing was upheld. The applicant was ordered to pay costs and to file a further notice of amendment remedying the defects.

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 459
Parties
Applicant: Ntokozo Patrick Zulu; Respondent: Eskom Rotek Industries (SOC) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 December 2018
Case Number
JS154/18
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Condonation and Determination of Exception to Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Exception dismissed on the ground of no cause of action; exception upheld on the ground of vagueness and embarrassment; costs awarded against applicant; applicant ordered to amend pleadings.
Judges
R G Lagrange
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Employment Contract Damages, Tacit Terms, Vague and Embarrassing Pleading
Labour Law Civil Procedure Exception Procedure Employment Contract Damages Tacit Terms Vague and Embarrassing Pleading

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ntokozo Patrick Zulu

Applicant

Eskom Rotek Industries (SOC) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Condonation and Determination of Exception to Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the respondent's exception.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's amended statement of claim discloses a cause of action.
  3. 3 Whether the amended statement of claim is vague and embarrassing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the applicant's amended statement of claim could, on a generous interpretation, be read to postulate a tacit term regarding the duration of employment and a claim for special damages, the pleading was vague and embarrassing. The applicant failed to clarify whether he relied on a tacit term or a reasonable expectation, and did not attach the written contract. The exception that the amendment did not disclose a cause of action was dismissed, but the alternative exception that the pleading was vague and embarrassing was upheld. The applicant was ordered to pay costs and to file a further notice of amendment remedying the defects.

Court Disposition

Exception dismissed on the ground of no cause of action; exception upheld on the ground of vagueness and embarrassment; costs awarded against applicant; applicant ordered to amend pleadings.

Orders

  • The late filing of the respondent's exception is condoned.
  • The respondent's exception to the applicant's notice of amendment on the basis that it does not disclose a cause of action is dismissed.